tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 8, 2011 10:00am-1:00pm EDT
the ayes have it. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: may i ask for a roll call on this vote. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. webster: mr. speaker, by
the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 337 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 50, house resolution 337. resolved,that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2354, making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2
of rule 21 are waived. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18. amendments so printed shall be considered as read. when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, my colleague on the rules committee, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is
recognized. mr. webster: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i rise today to support this rule and the underlying bill. the resolution 337 provides for an open rule consideration for house resolution -- h.r. 2354, the energy and water appropriation act of 2012. this rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for the members of the minority and majority to participate in that debate. the rule places no limitations on the number of amendments to be considered as long as they comply with the rules of the house. this continues the speaker's and the rule chairman's desire and commitment to have transparency and openness, which was demanded by the american people. it's been a long time since we had this type of process, and the great to have an open process. i think it helps with the
partisanship that we've experienced. the underlying bill funds the department of energy while also moving forward several ongoing construction and operation and maintenance efforts by the corps of engineers. it also provides $1.2 billion in emergency funding for the communities of midwest and south ravaged by tornadoes, storms and floods earlier this year. $477 million to set aside for fossil energy research and development. nearly three times the amount, $1.3 billion, is appropriated for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to ensure we continue to move forward in developing next generation power sources and fuels. critical defense environmental cleanup efforts are funded at the total of $4.9 billion. this bill recognizes the importance of long-term nuclear waste disposal policy for the united states. $3.5 million is provided for nuclear waste disposal for the yucca mountain nuclear waste storage site in nevada. further, no funds in this bill
will be used to shut down yucca mountain. since 1983, taxpayers have spent over $15 billion for the construction of this facility, and this bill reasserts the sense of the body that yucca mountain is the future repository for nuclear waste. as ever program or project funded at the levels we would like -- is every program or project funded at the levels we would like? probably not. the evergleads are significantly pare d'back in this bill. i'm sure almost every member of this body would like to see a project plused up. this is not a perfect world, however, and at the end of the day the funding levels in this bill represents a 3.3% modest cut from last year. we have to scale back our spending. appropriations of the last congress approved about $1.65 trillion in deficit spending. s the largest ever. we borrow about $4.5 billion every day and we have to just
pare back. will the cut make this bill go a long -- the cuts made in this bill alone right our nation's fiscal? no. it moves the rutter to turn it around. the bill changes the way washington has spent taxpayers' money in the past. for example, there are no earmarks in this bill. also, because this bill is being considered in an open rule, any member can offer an amendment to increase or decrease funding levels. again, the 3.3% cut to the department of energy and corps of engineers' budget will not solve all our nation's fiscal problems but at least it's the step in the right direction. mr. speaker, once again, i rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. given our current pudget situation, the appropriations committee has worked diligently to provide us with the fiscal responsible bill that allows
congress to begin living within its means, just like the american families and businesses are forced to do every day. i encourage my colleagues to vote why on the -- vote yes on the bill and yes on the rule. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to thank my colleague from florida for the time as well as to thank the majority members of the rules committee for a fair rule that will enable a wide variety of floor amendments to be brought forward. i do rise in opposition to the underlying bill unless there are major changes made, which i hope a majority of the house successfully achieve in doing under this fair open rule. the current political debate in washington is dominated by the question of federal spending, and i think it's a question that we need to revisit under each appropriations bill. we need to cut wasteful spending. we should eliminate programs that don't work, eliminate
corporate giveaways, look at the cost of tax subsidies that cost billions of dollars to americans but fail to create jobs and really serve to enrich special interests. we also need to make sure we don't lose sight that -- in our drive to reduce the deficit that we impact investments that are creative and help our economy and reduce deficits over time. just as a successful business making cuts in a recession would make the cuts intelligently and wouldn't cut essential investments on capitol hill resources. congress shouldn't slash domestic investments that create jobs while also at the same time continuing to give handouts to multibillion dollar corporations. given the approach to budgeting this year in this body, it seems like the majority is basing their decisions on arithmetic to balance the budget. rather, there seems to be an equation in play.
lobbying not by a real concern for deficit reduction. with this appropriations bill, i think what we're seeing is more of the same. how else can we explain a budget that ends medicare while preserving tax subsidies for big oil, tax subsidies for corporate jets and continues wasteful defense programs, in fact, actually increases the defense budget when we know we have more defense than we can afford in this country? why is wasteful spending prioritized over health care for our seniors, the education of our children and investments under this bill that keep our air and water supply clean and healthy reducing health care costs in the long run? now, again, when we talk about these appropriations bills, it's not a debate over whether we should cut the deficit. i think republicans and democrats agree that we need to cut the deficit. the debate about how we restore fiscal discipline that has been abandoned over the last decade. let's have that debate here in
the u.s. house and i'm glad that this rule allows us to d it under this bill and i hope we'll make some major changes to this bill. unfortunately, the energy and water bill presented before the house under this rule exemplifies a reckless and ideological approach to the budget. this bill actually increases funding levels, i creases deficit funding levels for fossil fuel research development, oil and gas research. it increases federal spending on these programs while cutting investments in clean energy research. now, in the past republicans have claimed they were for an all-of-the-above approach energy policy. looking at the exploitation of fossil fuels and also investing in new energy research, but this bill represents instead of all of the above, this represents an oil above all approach to national energy policy.
it's simply not a serious response for america's need for cleaner, more affordable domestic energy. now, at a time when we all agree we are confronting a financial crisis, how can we ask the americans to foot the bill for exxonmobil's r&d? this is what the republicans are choosing to protect and cutting spending for education. we should invest in the american clean energy that will help our environment and our economy. this legislation cuts total funding for the energy department's office of energy efficiency and renewable energy by 42% compared to 2010 at the same time increasing subsidies to oil and gas. these cuts mean less innovation, dirtier energy and fewer clean energy jobs. in my home state of colorado alone, over 5,000 jobs have been spun off of research that
was conducted at the national renewables laboratory and it estimates a $14 billion annual boost to our state's economy. it's that kind of research that's devastated under this bill, and i'm sure through this open amendment process, i call up my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support efforts to restore that funding. these labs, like the national renewable energies laboratory are incubators. they are not going to bloated bureaucracies in washington, they going to the hiring of experts and innovators that will spin off their ideas to entrepreneurs to bring to the marketplace. a model for private sector job growth that's critical for our nation's economy and critical for our national security in mying our own energy needs domestically. the department of energy's investment in clean energy are the first steps in the domino effect.
as of august, 2010, for example, national renewable energies laboratory had 329 pro-- contracts with colorado companies, including $775 million in the most recent fiscal year. they have cooperative research and development agreements with 23 colorado companies. and they support interactions with companies from across the nation. that's just one example of the many research initiatives and public-private partnerships that this bill as written would call into jeopardy. while again calling into jeopardy much of this fundamental research that has private sector applications were begin increase in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries' research. $141 million or 81% cut to weatherization initiatives that help insulate the homes of low-income, elderly and disabled individuals is in this bill while continuing and increasing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. in another dangerous cut in this bill is cutting funding to
the r.p.e. by 44% compared to the current year. r.p.e. has strongly had bipartisan support for years and helps fund innovation in the economy based on a proven successful model we've had in defense for many years called darpa. it has ideas that is likely to get funding anywhere else at an early age. the created model is modeled after darpa, ranging from cell phones to the creation of the internet itself. it has tremendous implications for america to meet its renewable energy needs. the bill before us is not smart. it's not sensible. it's simply not a fiscally responsible bill that meets our nation's energy future needs and cuts our deficit. i urge my colleagues to improve this bill through amendments during this open amendment process, and if it's anything
to the close to the current form, to oppose the bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to address a couple of items. the tax policy and how we can raise extra revenues. the tax policy was given to us by the 111th congress. i ashumsume if they wanted to change it they would have when they were in the majority. they didn't. as far as the money we're using in this budget, it is a small decrease but we have to do it. we're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, $4.5 billion a day. we cannot afford it. if we were to increase the allocation in this particular bill, then we would actually be borrowing 100% of that allocation increase because we do not have the cash. so to me we are here with a good bill. the rule certainly is a good rule. it's an open rule. it's the perfect opportunity for anybody that wants to change this bill to do so. however, the underlying bill is also a good bill.
it's done very well. just to give you a picture of what the minority said about it and their views in the -- that serve on the committee, we commend the chairman, both the subchair and the full chair, for their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. the bill funds critical water resource projects, supports science activities necessary to american competitiveness and contributes to our national defense through vital weapons naval reactor research and nonproliferation funding. all these priorities that unite all of us rather than divide. there was a disagreement, over the allocation, but we cannot afford any more of an allocation for this than we have and the budget done is an excellent one under the circumstances. i reserve my time. the speaker: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: it's my honor to yield to the gentlewoman from
california, ms. matsui. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. matsui: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from colorado for yielding me time. ever since i was elected, i've been a tireless worker on sacramento flood priorities. sacramento lies at the meeting place of to great rivers. the city is home to the california state capital, the state's water and electric grid and over half a million people. if sacramento were to flood, the economic damages would range between $28 billion and $40 billion. the consequences of such a flood one felt across the nation. even in this austere budget environment, it is critical that sacramento's basic flood protection needs are met. i want to applaud the energy and water subcommittee for including funding for sacramento's top flood protection projects.
each one of these projects is a critical component to improving flood protection for the entire sacramento region. taken together, the completed projects will bring us closer to the level of flood protection that families and businesses throughout the reneed and deserve. moreover, these projects are ready -- are already in the midst of construction. a lapse of funding would not only postpone the safety that the completed projects will provide but also increase the project costs, something we cannot afford. in fact, these projects have already been funded at the local and state level and are waited a sustained federal match. for example, federal funding will help finish the folsom dam j.f.p. for continued construction of the spillway will provide greater efficiency in the
folsom reservoir and critical dam safety improvements. the hundreds of thousands of residents live beg low the dam will be better protected once the project is finished. the j.f.p. and levee improvement will go a long way to prochects -- protecting sacramento. but this does not fully support sacramento's flood protection needs. the levels in this bill are below the corps of engineers' full capability. this winter, we have had record-breaking snow pack in the sierra nevada mountain range just above sacramento. we have fortunate that the snow pack did not melt all at once. when this occurs, our dams and he ve videos are put to the -- and levees are put to the test. luck is not something the american people should have to rely on. hurricane katrina and this year's flooding in the midwest
taught us we need to shore up the nation's flood protection and infrastructure. let's take the opportunity to fix it while the sun is out and not watch another american community get swept away in high water. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back who yields time? the gentleman from florida. >> i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i have no additional speakers and inquire of the gentleman from florida if he has additional speakers. >> i am ready to close and would yield to the gentleman from colorado for closing. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. this bill, againing while we appreciate the open amendment process, will need an open amendment process to correct because it's so highly flawed in its current form. it serves as a series of
anti-public interest riders, overriding the clean water act and putting burdens on local communities. it requires the corps of engineers to avoid working on levees. a large percentage of people receive water from bodies of water that would be affected by this bill. unconventional shale gas has been expanding into new areas at a breakneck pace and accompanied by growing health and pollution problems experienced by residents and communities when the drilling
is taking place in close proximity. its growth is outpacing current safeguards and gives too much isolation. i have great concerns that the committee felt the immediate to interfear in a mansed advisory panel with the aim of silencing public voices with the priority of protecting the industry above all else. this legislation shes us whose side they are on, entrenched industries and polluters, not the public interest. this is important funding legislation. historically it's been bipartisan and shouldn't be a play brund for special interest handouts. yet under this majority, that's what this bill has become that we're considering today. the bill in its current form undermines our energy fupe, undermines the national security and subsidizes an energy industry that has given
us fracking health hazards, higher gas prices an dirtier air. it attempts to drive a loophole through the laws that keep our air and water safe. we need to not focus on funding special interests and harmful cuts to clean competitors. i urge a no vote on this bill. i urge my colleagues to come forth and try to improve this bill under the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from florida. ? mr. speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my republican colleagues an i are committed to providing a more open, accountable and transparent process. the underlying bill went through regular order including eight different subcommittee hearings, several democrat amendments were adopted at the committee level, it is prorided an open rule to allow republicans and democrats alike
to offer their ideas in an open and honest debate. mr. webster: this rule provides for an open and transparent process where ideas will rise and fall paced on merit, not party afill quations. this is what the american people expect. it's an expectation being fulfilled by this rule and encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage. i yield back and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of theres. rution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2219 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriationers in department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, july 7, the bill had been read through page 61, line 12. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. kucinich of ohio, at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following new section, section, none of the funds in this action may be used for military operations in or against libya except under a declaration of war against libya. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.
mr. kucinich: mr. chairman, members of the committeing before the house completes work on this important bill, i think that it is imperative that the house is provided with one more opportunity to clarify its position with respect to the constitution and our power under article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the constitution, which reads as follows. congress has the power to declare war. this amendment says none of the funds in this act may be used for military operations in or against libya except under a declaration of war against libya pursuant to clause 11 in section 8 of article 1 of the constitution. so what this amendment does is it recognizes congress' power
to appropriate and links it in this case to congress' ability to declare war and enables this house to difintively, difintively make a statement that it is our prerogative, our constitutional right to determine whether or not this nation goes to war and we are not going to see any war funded absent a declaration of war by this congress. it is imperative that we act because by september this administration will have spent $1 billion on the war without congress having any say in it whatsoever. we will have gone to a war without any ability of congress to have a voice. now, to its credit, this house
has taken up numerous proposals relative to the war in libya that have sought to limit the fear of conduct of hostilities against libya. no ground troops, no money to rebels. this amendment, however, gives the house one last opportunity within this bill to speak very clearly about article 1, section 8, clause 11 and to do it in the context of an appropriations bill which says we will not permit any funds to be authorized unless this congress moves forward with a declaration of war. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. mr. dicks: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to -- the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: to the kucinich amendment. first of all, the president has
made a very strong case for this, for our military action in this. i think as commander in chief he has the authority to do what he did. we had a u.n. resolution, the nato allies were involved, the arab league. there are -- there is another option. the other option is the war powers act, and i hope at some point the president will ask for congressional support of his initiative in libya. the idea that we're going to pull out of this thing unilaterally, undermine the nato alliance i think is a terrible mistake. though i have the greatest respect for the gentleman from ohio, i am strongly opposed to his amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i would first admit that if this
gentleman introducing this amendment is nothing it's that he's persistent. after two lengthy days, 10 and 11 hours each day with amendment after amendment being presented we have just seen this amendment in the last five minutes. we'd like to -- we would have liked to have a little time to analyze it. but a quick analysis of this amendment tells me that it's very much like all of the other libyan amendments that we have defeated in the last two days. for example, i believe -- i'm satisfied that this amendment would preclude any search and rescue mission on the part of americans to save americans. i'm satisfied it would prevent us from providing any intelligence, surveillance or reconnaissance. i'm satisfied that it would not permit us to do any aerial refueling of our coalition
partners and our nato partners. i'm satisfied that the amendment would prohibit us from even being involved, sitting in the room while operational plans were being developed that might have an effect on the support role that the united states plays. so here we go again, we've already defeated this issue close to a dozen times in the last two days. so i just suggest we move on and defeat this amendment also. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. kucinich: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed.
pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which proceedings were postponed. the first amendment by mr. flake of arizona, the second amendment by mr. flake of amendment, amendment number 3 by mr. flake of amendment, an amendment by mr. huelskamp, the amendment by mr. polis. the first vote is on the amendment by mr. flake of arizona, on which the amendment was postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair:, the question is on the vote of the gentleman from flake. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise
and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 39. the nays are 380. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment by mr. flake -- from the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is
voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: third amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. ed i ed if -- [captioning made possible by the national caponing institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the hoe proceedings for political or commercial purposes is pressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 100. the nays are 32 2 the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 77 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp, on which further proceedings were postponed an on which the noes prevailed by vose vote. -- voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 77 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. huelskamp of kansas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 208 -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 236, the nays are 184, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, upon which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.
those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, upon which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offer by mr. kucinich of ohio. -- offered by mr. kucinich of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: without objection. mr. hoyer: ladies and gentlemen, this is a wonderful day. of celebration. today we celebrate the 85th birthday of an extraordinary american, an american who has served over 5/8 of his life in this house. an american whose father served before him. an american who has been sent to the congress, congress after congress after congress after congress. a member who has made an extraordinary contribution to the legislative history of this congress. and to the welfare of this country. john dingell today is 85 years
of age. mr. hoyer: and, mr. speaker, i am pleased to now yield to somebody who has not served with him for 85 years but has served with him for a very significant time on the extraordinarily important energy and commerce committee, my friend from texas, mr. barton. mr. barton: thank you, congressman hoyer. it has been my pleasure to serve for 26 years on the energy and commerce committee with the distinguished gentleman who is having his 85th birthday. what some of our newer members may not know is what a gentleman
chairman dingell is and the uniqueness of his character is that he will impact his wisdom to those of us in the opposition party and encourage us to then go out and use it against him knowing that he is smart enough, tough enough and effective enough to beat us at our own game. he is truly a paragon of this congress and will go down in my estimation in history as one of the top 10 congressmen or women of all time. i want to extend him my warmest 85th birthday wishes and get him to guarantee that as long as he is able he will serve in this body because he is truly a treasure for both sides of the aisle.
mr. hoyer: i know that all of us -- those of you who are new to this body, what mr. barton has just said, if you want an example of a truly great legislator, a legislator who has year after year sat down with both sides of the aisle, with all the different interest groups in this -- that are represented in this congress and worked together to bring consensus to quality legislation you could have no better example than john dingell. and so i'm pleased to rise, mr. dingell, and express great admiration, respect and deep affection for you which i know is shared by all of your colleagues and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back.
the clerk will read the last two lines of the bill. the clerk: this act may be cited as the department of defense appropriations act 2012. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise and i report the bill back to the house with an amendment, sundry amendments and with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the committee does now rise.
mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house distribute committee of the whole house having had under consideration h.r. 229 directs me to report the same back with sundry amendments that the amendments be agreed to and the bill be amended do pass. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2219 and reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole with a recommendation that the amendments be adopted and that the bill as amended do pass. on the house resolution 3, to the previous question is ordered -- 320, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them
engross. -- engros. the question is on the a-- en gros. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five -- the gentleman qualifies and the clerk will so report. the clerk: mr. barrow of georgia moves to recommit the bill, h.r.
2219, to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 7, line 2, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $20 million -- mr. barrow: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. beiro: thank you, mr. speaker. we, americans, owe no greater debt than we owe the men and women of the armed services who risk their lives to protect our freedoms. we currently have around 350,000 troops deployed overseas. about a third of that cofrom our national guard and reserve. many national guard members -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.
the gentleman may proceed. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. while most americans don't know it, many national guard members don't get the same support we give career service members. when many national guards men and women go on the plane to go overseas, their families don't know about the services that are available to them. and when many of those trops get back home they don't have -- troops get back home they don't have the help they need to get back in daily lives. to address this disparity, in 2008 congress established the yellow ribbon reintegration program to provide a support network tailored to meet the needs of national guard and combat veterans. they help families with career counseling, suicide prevention, access to health care, veterans' benefits and education benefits. this final amendment would increase funding by $200
million. the augusta wounded warrior projects help wounded veterans. i've had the honor of working with them on some of these priorities and to meet with some of the returning veterans they helped. what i hear over and over is that veterans can't take advantage of the many different support services available to them if they don't know about them or don't know how to navigate the bureaucracy that runs them. the yellow ribbon program helps them make that connection and get the services they've earned. according to the 2010 annual report to congress, the yellow ribbon program held over 2,000 events and had over 300,000 contacts with individual servicemen and their family members. that's a 50% increase in participation over 2009. and as the total number of returning national guard and veterans goes up the need goes up. this amendment will help make sure that the yellow ribbon
program will help meet that need. my amendment makes these funds available through a transfer from the account for the afghanistan security forces fund. that account is funded in this bill at $12.8 billion. while i think those funds are an important part of the strategy for long-term success in afghanistan, i think the highest and best use of a very small part of that money is to help our national guard and reserve combat veterans get back on their feet again. my amendment would use about 1.5% for that purpose, which i think is reasonable. in exchange for about 1.5% of what we are about to provide to help the afghans take care of themselves we can provide a 125% increase in support for those american soldiers and their families who make it all possible. i think that's a pretty good deal. finally, my amendment will not in any way delay final passage
of this important passage. if adopted we move to a straight final vote on passage of this legislation. i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their service and for their work on this bill. i think my amendment will have virtually no adverse impact on what we're trying to do for afghanistan, but it will have a huge positive impact on meeting the need of our combat veterans and their families. i hope that's something we can all support. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, the motion to recommit i think is a strong statement that this is a pretty good defense appropriations bill because the minority using the procedural vote that minorities always use
-- most always use is -- does not do real damage to the bill, but it doesn't really do anything that needs to be done either so it's a procedural vote and i suggest we just vote against it and get on to the bill. but about the yellow ribbon, the bill already contains $246.5 million for the yellow ribbon program, which we support. it's a good program, especially for reintegration for returning veterans and reservists and their families. in addition, we accepted that amendment by mr. holt to add $20 million for further suicide prevecks for our return combat -- prevention for our returning combat veterans. that's not a bad number $265 million, when you consider reducing the president's budget
by $9 billion. so i think we did pretty good, and i think that this motion to -- this motion to recommit is a strong indication that there's nothing really wrong with this bill. we should go ahead and defeat the motion to recommit and pass the bill. i yield back. i yield to the gentleman from california. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding. the speaker pro tempore: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed from california. mr. lewis: i appreciate the gentleman yielding and i say the gentleman from georgia is making a point that we all understand, the guard and reserve are very important to our future clearly. but even more important is for us to get this house back on a pathway to regular order whereby we bring bills through
the committees, bring them to the floor, open rules, have the opportunity to have these debates and the like. and i must say our chairman has done a fabulous job in moving in that direction, but i also would say that our ranking member of the committee, of the subcommittee who's also ranking member of the full committee, has been publicly committed to getting us back to regular order. indeed, as a tribute to both of their work by way of strengthening the future of the house and our work this year, i would hope we not just defeat this motion to recommit but give an overwhelming vote in support of their final work on final passage. with that i yield back. mr. young: i yield back my time, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the gentleman from georgia. mr. barrow: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the question is on the motion to recommit. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. barrow: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of h.r. 2219 and the adoption of house resolution 337. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 188 and the nays are 234, the motion is not adopted. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote and will be followed by a five-minute vote on the adoption of house resolution 340. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 336, the nays are 87. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on adoption of house resolution 340 on which the yeas and nays have been recordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar number 351, resolution 340, providing for consideration of the bill h r. 1309 to extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program to achieve reforms to improve the stability of the program and increase the role of private marks in the management of flood insurance risks and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. lech lecked. this is a five-minute vote.
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 269, the nays are 146, the resolution is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed on h r. 2109. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: on monday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. on tuesday, wednesday, and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes othey have week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday. on monday, we will begin amendment debate on the energy and water appropriations bill and consider h r. 2417, the better quse of light bulbs act, under suspension of the rules. for the remainder of the week, the house will consider h.r. 1309, the h r. reform act of 2011, h.r. 2018, the clean water cooperative federalism act of 2011, h.r. 2434, the financial services appropriations bill, and potentially legislation realing
to the expiring authorization of the f.a.a. finally, mr. speaker, as a scheduling notice, members are advised that the house will now be in session during the week of july 18. i expect legislative business for the week to begin on tuesday, july 19, at 2:00 p.m. with first votes postponed until 6:30 p.m., last votes for the week are expected to conclude no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, july 22. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his scheduling information. i want to pursue what i presume is the reason for not having the recess that was -- the district work period that was originally scheduled of. my presumption is that we are concerned about the impending arrival of the august 2 date on which the -- on which america
would be put in position of defaulting on its obligations. i presume that's the reason that we want to make sure that we are here to work on that issue. am i correct on that? mr. cantor: the gentleman is correct. it is my hope we can have some deliberative processes and open discussions so that we can arrive at an appropriate conclusion of the challenges surrounding the issue of the debt limit expiration. that is correct. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that observation. i know the gentleman has said in the past that he believes it would be a very bad situation for our economy and for our country if we did not extend the debt limit. am i correct that the gentleman still shares that view? mr. cantor: the gentleman --
i'll say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that i have said before that america pays its bills. just like the american people are expected to pay the bills, to pay their bills at home and in their small and large businesses. but the fact is, i think that the american people are expecting us to live up to the promise that we are not going to let spending get out of control again. and so the purpose of the deliberations that are ongoing throughout this capitol, at the white house, etc., are focused and should be on making sure we change the system, making sure we accomplish the necessary cuts which would exceed the amount that would raise the debt limit as well as to signal to the american people that we have changed the system. that this -- that this kind of unbridled spending ceases an we begin to live within our means, get the fiscal house in order, so that we can focus on the overriding need for this
country right now which is to create an environment where jobs return. another gentleman -- i know the gentleman has seen today's jobs report. disappointing is an understatement. i make the point again, as the gentleman knows, mr. speaker, he and i were at a meeting at the white house yesterday with the president in which i said again the import of our need to act an act responsibly and not, not to raise taxes on the american people and the small businesses that we need so desperately to begin to create jobs again. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm pleased, as the gentleman knows, to hear that you want to stop the spiraling deficits that confront our country. i will repeat again, because the gentleman keeps mentioning this and i have enough experience to know what's happened and in the 30 years i've been here, of course we've had some few years
of the obama administration but we had mr. reagan's administration, mr. bush first administration, mr. bush second administration and we ran up over -- i want the gentleman, i know he knows this, over $6 trillion of deficit during that period of time. however, in the eight years that mr. clinton was president of the united states we had a 62 -- $62.9 billion surplus. now the gentleman makes the point that spending is out of control. the fact is, as the gentleman clearly knows, that when you were in charge of the house and the presidency and the senate you increased spending by more than was increased during the clinton administration by a percentage on an annual basis. so that i'm glad to hear that your side now, without fail, talks about spending being out of control. as a matter of fact, i have a feeling if your side was spending five cents would you
think that we would need to cut an additional five cents in revenues so that we could not pay the bills. because that's why we ran up $6 trillion in deficits. you did not pay for what you bought. i'm with those who strongly believe we ought to pay for what we buy. but i also believe that we ought not to put this country on the brink of financial chaos and bring us down in the eyes of the world because we don't extend our debt. now very frankly i think we'll pay for what we buy. we call that taxes. whether it's defending america, paying our f.b.i., paying people who are researching cancer, heart, lung, diabetes issues, those are federal expenditures for which the american people pay through taxes. and very frankly if we're going to be responsible we make a very simple judgment. if we want to buy it, we ought
to pay for it. that $6 trillion of deficit that was incurred during the presidencies and the president is the only person in america can stop spending. only one. you can't do, it i can't do it. we need 217 other votes in our house, over there they need at least 60 votes to do anything. the president can do it himself. ronald reagan never had a veto overridden of a bill that said we spent too much money, george bush i never had a veto over overriden in which he see ared to a -- overriden in which he see are toad a bill saying we spent too much money and george bush ii never once had a veto overrid son that we spent money that he did not sanction. so i say to my friend, we did meet at the white house and the president of the united states, the leader of our party and i and mr. reid and mr. durbin all
said yes, we need to get a handle on this spending. yes, we need to get a handle on the deficit. and, yes, we need to bring down the debt. and we need to come to the table together with everything on the table. and we need to pay for what we think we ought to buy and frankly we ought to ensure that the united states of america for the first time in history doesn't pay its bills. and i tell my friend that we've had a lot of commentary over the last few days, people on wall street, people in business, large, medium and small and i will tell you if the united states doesn't by august 2 agree to pay that which it owes, that which it has incurred, not what we're going to incur in the past, those debts we've incurred
in the past, everybody in america is going to be hurt. everybody -- every economist that i've talked to says that interest rates are going to spike, stock markets are going to be at risk and millions people who have pension funds and who have interest in their pensions are going to be adversely affected. the housing market which is struggling is going to be hurt. the economy that is struggle something going to be hurt. so i would hope that my friend and i will go to the white house on sunday where we'll sit with the president of the united states and we will be for a large deal that is referred to as a comprehensive solution so that we can in fact not in the short-term, not temporarily, but a long-term bring fiscal discipline to the operations of
our country. our country needs that, i think the international community expects that of us and if we don't do that, i tell my friend, i think we will not have fulfilled our oath of office. to protect and defend the constitution of the united states and serve the general welfare of our country and our people. now, some in your party of course have suggested there's no need to raise the debt. does the gentleman agree with that proposition? i'm not going to go through the quotes but as know one of your candidates for president has indicated there's no need to worry about raising the debt. she serves in this body, as a matter of fact. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'll respond to the gentleman as he knows, he and i have had plenty of discussions about this, so assume we're just on for show here that he wants me to say yes, i believe it would be a grave consequence if we did not
reach the point at which we could arrive at a solution and put a bill forward that would permit an increase in the credit limit of this country with an associated cut in spending and move to get our fiscal house in order. and as the gentleman correctly pointed out, the reason why now we will not be in our districts the week of the 18th is to ensure that we do get it right and that we recognize that the markets, the investors around the world are smarter than expecting us to just go and check the box to meet the date. at the end of the day what the markets and investors and more importantly the american people are looking for is that we act responsibly, that we begin to manage down the debt and deficit . that means trillions of dollars of cuts necessary because i
think most americans are looking at washington in disbelief, that somehow we think there's not enough money coming into the federal government. i mean, just look at the jobs report today. i cannot fathom how anybody, how anyone thinks right now is a good time to raise taxes. who thinks that raising taxes on individuals and small businesses can help create jobs? we are in a crisis. people in this country need to get back to work. let me just, mr. speaker, for the point of explanation, because the gentleman insists on going back decades to recount the past, and as the gentleman knows, i'm the first one to say that we came to this majority with some con trigs, that, no, -- con trigs, that, no, we weren't always acting in the fiscal health of this country and that's why we have taken the job at hand and act responsibly
and passed a budget that actually put a plan in place to manage down the debt and deficit, unlike the other body, unlike this president. and that's why we come to the table right now, as we approach this debt ceiling vote with a well thought out, deliberative plan to get people back to work while we get the fiscal house in order. but let's just review some of the statistics, mr. speaker. there have been 2 1/2 million jobs lost since this president took office. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield on that? mr. cantor: no, i will not. 13.9 million americans unemployed right now. gallon of gas is significantly higher, well into the $3.50, $3.60 a gallon in places in this country. up from $1.85 when this president took office. $14.3 trillion in current national debt. up from $10.6 trillion when this
president took office. if you worked -- if you work that out, $$46,000 -- $46,042 debt per person up from $43,371 when this president took office. so you can go through line by line of how things have gotten worse for the american people. now, we can sit here and blame and point fings all day long. but i would suggest, mr. speaker, the american people are tired of the bickering, they want to see some solutions, they want to see us come together. that's exactly why we have altered the schedule, so we can begin to actually deliver on the promise. so i agree with the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, we've got a serious challenge ahead of us. we on this side of the aisle have been consistent in our efforts to meet that challenge in a responsible way, but i would underscore again, now is
not the time to raise taxes, now is not the time to say that washington needs more money because that money comes off the hard work and backs of the american people. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. very interesting comments he makes, of course he leaves out some things. he talks about the jobs that were lost. those jobs were lost of course as this administration took office. this administration has gained back two million of the eight million jobs that were lost during the economic program that my friend from virginia voted for the most part. eight million jobs were lost and the month that this administration took office in january, 780,000 jobs in one month were lost the last month
of the bush administration. that's not very distant past but let me tell you, i heard the same rhetoric, you said it changed, i heard the same rhetoric in 1993, the same rhetoric when we adopted a program that we said would balance the budget, bring the economy back and create jobs. the same rhetoric, oh, no you won't do it. the program that you're going to adopt, none of which -- none of you voted for, you weren't here, i understand that, but the same rhetoric applied, you thought we were going to tank the economy, kill jobs, explode the deficit and have high unemployment. in fact, as my friend well knows, he didn't read those statistics because he thinks they're ancient history because you opposed that policy. but that policy created 22 million jobs. that's a 30 million-job
difference between the bush administration that was the follow-on administration and the clinton administration. 30 million-job difference, i tell my friend, under the policies that you adopted and you supported in the 2000's. so i would hope that my friend's comments are correct, that you have decided to change. in point of fact we need change. and in point of fact the american public, which is divided itself, but would like us to come together, i am hopeful that we do that and my friend and i have had the opportunity to talk about this. we do have significant differences but none of us can put something on the table and say, if you don't agree i'm going to take the -- i'm going to tank the economy, i'm going to have america default for the first time in its 200-plus years of history. if you don't agree and do it my way. i have said, the leader has said
on this side, everything's on the table. we understand that you got to pay for what you buy and we also understand we got to buy less. and we're prepared to do both and in fact we have agreed to do both in the biden talks. now, my friend knows, he talks about economists. the most successful investor in america, i think most people would agree, is warren buffet. warren buffet said we raise the debt ceiling seven times during the bush administration and now in this congress, under the republicans, they're using it as a hostage and you rp really don't have any business -- and you really don't have any business playing russian roulette to get your way in some manner. we should, he said, be more grown up on. that to that extent he echoed the comments of our speaker who is trying, in my opinion, to get to a place where we can come
together, compromise as is critical under democracy, pay our bills and reduce our obligations and reduce spending buffett went on to say, we should be more grown up on that. if we don't meet the august 2 deadline, he observed, you're playing with fire when you don't need to play with fire and we don't need to tell the rest of the world that any time people in congress start throwing a tantrum that we're not going to pay our bills. that is not responsible behavior. it's not adult behavior. it's not good for anybody in the united states of america. and it's not good for the international community. in fact, senator simpson, who was referring to tom coburn, has said, look, you've got to have everything on the table, including, yes, revenues, yes, taxes.
some bard has said that taxes are the price we pay for democracy. they should not be any higher than they need to be but we ought to pay for what we -- for what we buy. if people don't want to pay for it, we ought not to buy it. unfortunately, the reason we racked up $6 trillion in deficits in the reagan and both bush administrations is because we bought things and didn't pay for them. as you heard me say at the white house, we, beth parties, voted for some things and didn't pay for them. we've got to stop that. that's why we put in place statutory pay-go. you say, well, we've changed. you passed a budget that doesn't balance the budget for the next 27 years. you passed a budget you voted for that. i didn't vote for that budget. doesn't balance the budget for 27 years.
almost three decades. very frankly, i don't think that does it. that's why we went down to the white house yesterday and almost everybody in the room said, we immediate to do a comprehensive, disciplined, courageous, honest, principled resolution of doing what you say you want to do, that your party wants to do, and what i'm telling you, my friend, we want to do, because there is no option. we must bring this deficit down. we must -- the debt we have confronting us is not sustainable. i would urge my friend, and i want to congratulate speaker boehner who at the white house said, look, we need to do this, we need to have a comprehensive agreement. that's what democracy demands. i'm not going to agree with some of the things in that
bill. you're not going to agree with some of the things in that bill. if in fact we pass the bill. but if we come together, if we act as adults, if we do what every responsible financial economist and advisor has told us we must do then america will be pleased with us. i tell my friend from virginia if we don't do that, if we continue to buy things we don't pay for and we continue to ask the people to get it for free, then frankly, your children and my grandchildren and children and great grandchildren will not be happy with us. so i urge my friend, he and i will be going to the white house on sunday. i urge him to come to the table, as i will come to the table, i tell him, with the understanding that compromise is essential.
that the pry crisis that confronts us is real. and that america expects us to act in their best interests and have the colonel, not the politics, not the ego, not the view of the next election, but the view of the long-term as we come together and try to confront this issue for which all of us are responsible, no one party, no one member, all of us. are responsible. but then again if that is the case, we are all responsible for its resolution. and i yield back -- i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would just try and keep my remarks short and that is to say, you know, listen, it's about jobs right now. an the gentleman correctly points out, we have a real spending problem here. and the question is, how do we address the first priority to get americans back to work, and
address that spending problem we got? now if the gentleman says we have to pay for what we buy, i certainly agree with that. we ought to just be buying less. as a government. because the money doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to the people and if we want more people to get back to work, we should allow them to keep more of their money so that they can create jobs. and that's really where the fundamental disagreement has been over the last couple of weeks. it certainly was what put the biden talks into abeyance because there's a lot of good work that was done by both sides of the aisle in that talk. and i still believe that the product of those talks will prove to be the basis upon which we can arrive at an appropriate resolution of the challenge before us around the debt ceiling. but why these talks ended was
that your side insisted that we raise taxes. and i would say to the gentleman, raising taxes is, as he would put it, paying for what we buy. i'm saying, let's stop buying so much. and let the people decide what it is they want to do with their money. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time -- mr. cantor: if i could finish, i'll yield back. mr. hoyer: i'll continue to yield. mr. cantor: i know the gentleman likes to focus on the hstry before, but every time the gentleman says, job lost here, jobs lost there, to posit again, there have been 1.7 million jobs lost since the stimulus bill we feel didn't need to do the stimulus bill because now we are stuck with over $800 billion in additional
debt with now unemployment today at 9.2%. so again, question whether we're on the right policies here and we're spending the dollars we need to be spending. maybe we shouldn't spend it. maybe we should let it be invested in the private sector. i would end by saying again, the deficit is a real problem. we got a $1.6 trillion deficit this queer, largest in the history, and third consecutive year of trillion-dollars of deficit. i say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, we can't tolerate that. the president shouldn't tolerate that. the american people have no patience anymore. that's why we need to get to work trying -- try to lower the hyperbole and get the job done. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. the gentleman, i understand, does not like me to look back.
but the problem with being around for some time, you hear people say things that this isn't going to work or that is going to work and you know what? hopefully that ought to be instructive as to whether it did work or didn't work. the problem i have, which apparently, i know you don't appreciate, is that i've heard the rhetoric before that you just used today and i heard it in 1993 on a program which had revenues in it, or as you like to say, taxes, obviously those are revenues. and it was going to destroy the economy. who said so? phil gramm, economist on your side. said we would deficit -- devastate the economy. he was dead, flat, wrong. 180 degrees wrong. we had the best economy in your lifetime. now furthermore, and let me instruct the gentleman, i don't know what you're reading from but your figures are wrong.
over the last 20 months, we have gained two million jobs, two million jobs. now, did we lose a lot of jobs in the first six months? we did. now, there is no doubt in my mind for one second that if it had been a republican president and democratic administration, there is no president who wouldn't have blamed that on their predecessor because they couldn't turn it around. so when the stimulus took effect, we gained two million jobs. have we duaned enough? no. we lost eight million jobs under the bush administration. we've only filled 25% of the hole. i don't know what paper you're looking at, but check your figures. this past month was disappointing. but some people are doing pretty well in america. stock market closed at about
12.7 plus yesterday. one thing i think people are worried about is making sure we act as adults, act responsibly, pay our bills and ensure that america does not default. all i'm going to say, and then i'll close, is that i hope the gentleman and i join together on sunday and every day thereafter between now and when we can resolve this issue is so that we can pay our bills, stabilize our economy, and give what the gentleman talked a lot about in our colloquies when our positions were reversed, i remember those days, talked a lot about, and that was competence. that was stability. the failure for us to act. as we acted seven times in the bush administration to raise the debt limit and i don't have the specific number but more than that in the reagan
administration. and by the way, in the last fouriers of the clinton administration, does the gentleman remember how many times we raised the debt limit? zero. zero. why? because for every up with of those four years we had a surplus. not a deficit. a surplus. mr. greenspan was worried at the end of the clinton administration we were going to pay off the debt too quickly. and president bush projected a $5.6 trillion surplus. so i tell my friend that the reason i look back is to not repeat the mistakes of the past. we didn't pay our bills. we paid our bills in the 1990's, we started not paying our bills again, you jettisonned the statutory pay-go, jettisonned it again, essentially, not the statutory part but the rule part. i would hope, again, i don't enjoy going back and forth on
this but i am concerned for my country. the speaker said he wanted to solve this problem by june 30. it's now jewel 7. -- july . we haven't resolved it. the country is waiting for us. let us hope that all of us will not say, can't do this, can't do that, can't do the other. let's go down to the white house on sunday, with the president, with the senate, with the leaders of this house, and say, yes we can. we can be responsible, we can be adults, we'll get this done for the people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i -- mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next at 12:00 p.m. for morning hour debate an 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection so ordered.
the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent that the speaker may appoint members to do the duties of the chair from august 8, 2011, to august 27 20, 11, as under clause 8 of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i rise today to ask unanimous consent to remove myself as co-sponsor of h reform 91. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 2354 that i might include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 337 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2354. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2354 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes.
the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for the first time. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes -- will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad to bring the bill before the house this afternoon. before i begin my remarks, let me thank the full chairman, mr. rogers, as well as the ranking member, mr. dicks, for their support of a very open process and their support of me as well as the ranking member. i particularly like to thank my ranking member, congressman pete visclosky, for his dedication to our joint mission and our close working relationship. the bill is stronger for his input and knowledge. i'd also like to thank the committee staff, rob blair, the clerk, joe levin, lorraine
heckenberg, angie geocarlo, i'll i'd also like to thank my personal staff, nancey fox and kath lynn and certainly recognize joe devo. mr. chairman, the energy and water development appropriations bill supports programs critical to our nation's security, safety and economic competitiveness. mr. chairman, for far too long federal agencies have been assuming ever increasing budgets leading to programs with poor rationale an even less accountability. those days are behind us now. this bill clearly shows that much greater fiscal discipline and a strong national defense and a strong economy can be achieved together. the bill for fiscal year 2012 provides $30.6 billion, $1 billion below fiscal year 2011 and $5.9 billion below the president's request.
bringing the total spending levels for our bill down to approaching the fiscal year 2016 level. an additional $1.3 billion is fully offset emergency funding which is provided to help recovery and repair efforts due to the severe floods we've seen in the mississippi and missouri river regions. these floods have resulted in immense devastation and loss of life and livelihoods. i commend the good work of the army corps which is in the front lines along with municipal county and state and other federal first responders when tragedies like this occur. mr. chairman, there are no congressional earmarks in this legislation. the highest national priorities are protected by supporting the department of energy's national defense programs and by preserving activities that directly support american competitiveness such as water infrastructure and basic science research.
the bill also supports critical national security programs by providing $10.6 billion for the national nuclear security administration, including $195.3 million above fiscal year 2011 for weapons activities to support the modernization of our nuclear stockpile. the bill also supports urgent ongoing efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide and the full request is design -- to design a reactor for the replacement of the ohio class ballistic missile submarine. we see how catastrophic flooding with affect lives and we know that yesterday's crisis could be anywhere tomorrow. this bill protects public safety and keeps america open for business by providing $4.7 billion for the army corps of engineers, $195 million above the president's request and $89 million below fiscal year 2011. the bill makes funds available
above the president's request for navigation and flood control , the activities most critical to public safety jobs and the economy. it gives the corps 45 days to deliver and justify their spending plans. this will give each project, whether in the president's budget or not, the opportunity to compete for these funds and ensure we understand how the corps really develops its requests. science research at the department of energy strengthens americans' competitiveness and enables troop break -- true breakthroughs in the energy sector and the bill preserves strong funding for this program at $4.3 billion, just $43 million below fiscal year 2011. the committee continues to support nuclear energy, providing $8 million above the request for ongoing research and promising new programs such as the small mod lar reactors which it funds at the request level. by reducing funding where stimulus funds are still
available or where the private sector is able to invest without federal help, the bill reduces funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy to $1.3 billion, $491 million below fiscal year 2011. the bill also upholds historic cleanup responsibilities by funding the defense environmental cleanup at $4.9 billion, less than 1% below last year's level and includes language to curb the department's use of bartering, to evade congressional oversight. finally, this bill includes numerous steps across all accounts, to ensure the administration follows the will of congress. for example, it includes funding in restrictions enforcing that yucca mountain is the law of the land and cannot be stopped by executive action alone. over the years the house -- this house in a bipartisan fashion has been fighting the administration's disdain for
sound science and the hard-earned taxpayers of our constituents that went into building that disposal site. and now the general accounting office has issued a report saying that there is no scientific reason for shutting down yucca and that the administration has been forced to release its own review showing that science actually supports yucca. even the nuclear regulatory commission's own inspector general has released findings highly critical of the way the n.r.c. chairman has with held information regarding yucca mountain from the public and his fellow commissioners. this bill supports these findings by including $35 million to keep yucca mountain going and language to ensure the political appointees at the n.r.c. commission can no longer inappropriately use their insider positions. it also includes new reporting requirements so the administration must track and show that the investments we make in science and technology
are effective use of taxpayer dollars. mr. chairman, i take seriously our responsibility to rein in federal spending and fiscal year 2012 -- in fiscal year 2012. the bill is premised upon hard questions and focused cuts where answers didn't hold up to scrutiny. this is a sort of analysis that will get our house in order. this bill deserves our members' support and i look forward to an open and full process and discussion and i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana, mrs. visclosky, is recognized. mr. visclosky: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i would like to express my appreciation to chairman frelinghuysen and his staff for their efforts to be inclusive and transparent in drafting this legislation. chairman has ensured that the energy and water subcommittee continues its tradition of
bipartisanship and within the constraints of the allocation he has done very wonderful work. while i hope that we can modify some elements of the bill, i would observe that our differences are marginal and our agreement is fundamental. also i would like to join the chairman in thanking the other members of the subcommittee and also all of our staff for their exceptional good and dedicated work. as the chairman mentioned, the allocation for energy and water is more than $1 billion below fiscal year 2011. this allocation was necessitated because of severe cuts to crucial programless. while i appreciate the chairman's considerable efforts and recognize difficult choices must be made to address the nation's serious financial situation, this bill starkly illustrates the short-sighted nature of the spending caps set by the house budget. the allocation for energy and water is simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed by the economic downturn and to guarantee our national security.
importantly the chairman continues efforts to improve program and project management at all of the agencies under the bill's jurisdiction. provisions carried in the past and instituted others aimed at increased oversight to. point out one example, the bill includes a requirement that the department of energy complete independent cost estimates at major milestones for projects with a total cost in excess of $100 million. a recent review of the department's cleanup-related construction projects by the army corps of engineers paints a bleak picture of the management system for such projects and casts doubt on recent reforms intended to remove the department off the general accounting department's list for high risk, a list that the department has been on for the last 21 years running. i am pleased the chairman has included a number of reporting
requirements and statutory limitations that will contribute to increased transparency and approved management and i strongly support his actions. the science account, critical to the competitiveness of our nature, is essentially the same as in 2011, not an insignificant achievement in light of the challenge the allocation provided. the bill also provides funds for the continuation of a promising new program called arpa-e which can drive innovations to support our scientific competitiveness. while arpa-e has shown some promise as a new organizational model, i am troubled that the same vigor that has led to the creation of arpa has been largely absent when it comes to addressing the systemic management and communication problems in other existing applied programs. i support and appreciate the inclusion of emergency funding
to respond to the historic floods in the mississippi and missouri river basins. communities devastated by natural disasters deserve our full support. i am however disappointed that the bill offsets this funding by withdrawing critical investment dollars from economic infrastructure in the united states. i would note that this is the second time this year that the committee has transferred funds between bills. the first time from nrg and water development to -- energy and water development to homeland security and now from transportation to energy and water. we need to reconsider this practice and not strip investments in one area to pay for emergency needs in another. i disagree with the notion that all funding for domestic emergency response should be offset immediately from domestic investment. in every year except two since 1997 the congress has recognized the need for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of natural disasters on the nation's water resource
infrastructure. since 2001 the congress has provided more than $24 billion to the corps for this purpose. while i grant that this figure is inflated by the enormous cost of reconstructing new orleans and the surrounding areas, perhaps new orleans would not have flooded in 2005 had we invested in critical infrastructure in the prior years. as we debate the long-term trajectory of taxes and spending, we cannot forego actions necessary for the security and safety of our citizens. yes, we must make difficult choices that will impact the future of this nation. but we cannot allow those decisions to fall on the backs of those who have already suffered. our country has provided billions in infrastructure funding on an emergency basis for dams and schools and roads in iraq and afghanistan, yet we don't have the fortitude to acknowledge that it costs money to protect our citizens at home.
we must stop disinvesting in the united states' economy. in its 2009 reportcard on america's infrastructure, the american society of civil engineers estimated an investment of $2.2 trillion is necessary to bring our nation's infrastructure up to good condition. moving forward we must have the strength to budget for emergencies on an annual basis, we know they happened every year. and it is time to begin to -- responsibly budget for them. i appreciate the chairman increasing core funding by $195 million above the president's woefully inadequate request, ensuring that some ongoing project will not be terminated. even with this additional funding the bill provides $677 million less than it did in 2010. our ports, harbors, navigational